cpitVoxRec

8 anni fadiscuss

Oh, I don't know about these particular ideas you're chasing. There are quite a number of independent, redundant resources that would be very difficult to align forgeries across and present as fraudulent data, worldwide, for weeks, months, and even years after the incident.

It just sounds like a fishing expedition for some kind of cover up that exploits an incredibly narrow gap, covered by a myriad of alternative information sources that are more than capable of sealing up an air tight sequence of events by other means.

Open, consumer information sources like flightaware.com alone had the answer to the questions you're asking, long ago.

The radar history for this event was paywalled here for days after the event:

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/ACA759/history

The open, freebie log only gives like two weeks of charts, but the data you mention was lying around, available for like 8 months, to anyone with premium access to that particular service. And anyway, I'm sure it's just a convenience wrapper to public data that's still floating around to anyone willing to dig.

Here's another service, if you've got $500 bucks, and really would like to know right now:

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/ac759/

And to reiterate, this is only costing money today on account of being late to the party.

Multiple systems surfaced this data to the world in real time, and openly back-logged for months after. I'd bet good money a wide audience fact checked exactly what you've suggested a long time ago (even here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14741605). But my opinion isn't very important when the information is available in a general sense, to anyone who really wants it, even now, more than a year later. Feel free to be suspicious about these resources being far downstream and non-official consumer products, but if that doesn't suffice, then other (much, much bigger) doubts occlude any potentially satisfactory assessment which won't get solved in a random thread by amateur internet detectives like us.

cpitVoxRec

8 anni fadiscuss

To call attention to my use of the word "operating" in this context, and highlight strict use of the word as ...technical(?) vocabulary, to form a rationale for censure of the general thrust of my statement, is pretty pedantic, and a semantic criticism at best.

Nonetheless, I'll put forward, that even if a direct flight from Toronto to San Francisco only takes about 5 or 6 hours, 19 hours, and rounding out the time of day to midnight as a circadian cue, definitely puts the pilot 3 hours past the usual 16 hour limit for bedtime (right, 12 hours for the co-pilot, okay). Both the pilot and co-pilot probably had at minimum another entire hour before they'd even have a chance to wind down and turn in for the night, so pile up the anticipatory nature of having to deplane and get to a hotel room onto their psychological state.

cpitVoxRec

8 anni fadiscuss

  I struggle to believe that it took 
  over 30 minutes to get this thing 
  back down after the incident

If your inferring that a 30 minute offset was introduced, in order to dump the stale audio buffer, before permitting access to the CVR instrument on the ground, I'd offer the idea that there were 4 other planes on the taxiway, waiting to take off, and that the intervening 30 minutes could be eaten up by letting those planes depart, based on an array of other factors.

A concerted effort to dump the recorder buffer would require the participation of more than just the flight crew, since it manipulates the standing traffic pattern. Not an impossibility, and we know that in-group "walls of silence" definitely accumulate in high-intensity industries, but the air traffic control audio suggests a really minor transgression of situational awareness, even if the circumstances are assuredly unforgiving ones.

In the radio audio, the pilot clearly states that he's noticing lights on what he imagines to be his runway, and asks for confirmation as to what they might be. The tower reaffirms that he's all clear. Only then does a pilot from one of the planes on the ground speak up, and complain.

At that moment, both ATC and the plane realize the error. It's arguable that the pilot anticipated a likely go-around, based on intuition that the lights he was observing were definitely other planes, and that what appears to be an extremely close call proves it's own margin of error as reasonable, given that the participants recovered from the error.

cpitVoxRec

8 anni fadiscuss

  trying to decentralizing

Pointing out a grammatical error, which appears in both your comment and the github page you linked to. The github page actually has a number of typos, and needs a little bit more proofreading and perhaps some proper English in some places.

As a call-to-action, the readme should present with polished grammar and a respectable tone for the author's voice.</grammarnazi>

An easily accessible starting point, to get a feel for what "tone" means, check out the Economist's style guide, which gives authors and columnists a set of editorial guidelines for how articles should sound, when a reader picks up their weekly copy of the magazine:

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/303640.The_Economist_Sty...

You'll notice the Economist tries to establish a homogenized voice, so that many writers may contribute, but all material feels like it's written by the same person, such that, without bylines, The Economist itself becomes a collectivized authorship, as a sort of writer's uniform.

Seems like such an idea might be relevant to your general concept.

cpitVoxRec

8 anni fadiscuss

They actually do clearly state in this PDF that a degree of fault lies in the crew being compromised by fatigue. Operating for 19 hours straight definitely places an individual in an area where one can be fighting to pay strict attention, even when it really counts.

There's also plenty of communication with Air Traffic Control in the tower, and not a whole lot of gaps to introduce significant mystery, so it's pretty unlikely that there would be anything earth shattering on the cockpit voice recorder.

comments